[lit-ideas] Re: A gift to the List on this Christmas Day

  • From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
  • To: wokshevs@xxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:21:24 -0330

Upon re-reading my latest offering, I am mortified to find an inexcusable error
in my text. 

4th par below: plse change "The maxim is morally permissible because" to "The
maxim is morally impermissible because." We apologize for any inconvenience
this may have caused our lectors. 

Five Hail Marys, three signs of the cross (properly executed I hasten to add,
not like the Catholics who insist on crossing themselves backwards), six
Russian Orthodox chants and 2 weeks community service at the YWCA as penance.

Walter O
High Priest
Secular Humanism Inc.






Quoting wokshevs@xxxxxx:

> Well, OK, just one more niggling comment while the turkey leftovers are noch
> ins
> Begriff, as George Bill Fred Hegel was wont to say (It really doesn't sound
> the
> same in English, does it.)
> 
> My Education students - more often the graduate rather than the
> undergraduate
> ones - often complain that K is somewhat confused about universalizability
> because while on the one hand he claims that consequences of following a
> maxim
> are of no moral worth and are irrelevant to the moral status of a maxim or
> principle, on the other, as Onora appears to make clear below, consequences
> of
> maxims based on a principle of indifference and neglect are clearly
> identified
> and appear operational in the analyses of maxims and principles, as well as
> the
> conclusions thereby arrived. 
> 
> The complaint is understandable, and is made by many K commentators - even
> by
> such illustrious educational philosophers as Ken Strike and Jonas Soltis in
> their *The ethics of teaching*. But I believe the criticism is ultimately
> otiose. (Did Mill make that criticism as well?)
> 
> Consider K's reasoning in the lying promise example in the Groundwork. The
> maxim
> is morally permissible because, in part, in a world in which all acted on
> that
> maxim, nobody could act on that maxim. Some agents must remain truthful
> simply
> to provide the element of trust as the necessary condition for the
> possibility
> of successfully making lying promises. 
> 
> But this is not a case of
> consequentialist reasoning, by my lights. One who recognizes an obligation
> to
> refrain from acting on such a maxim, on K's sense of "obligation," doesn't
> so
> refrain because she is concerned about the conseqences of acting on the
> maxim.
> The insight into the moral impermissibility of the maxim consists in the
> recognition that deception for purposes of self-interest is *intrinsically*
> wrong. And it is that recognition that individuates "the good will" from
> other
> forms of willing that also produce "good" results but are intrinsically
> devoid
> of moral worth. Moreover, the "consequences" that the morally virtuous agent
> entertains in deliberating upon the moral status of the maxim are not
> empirical
> results or effects of having everybody act on that maxim. This because
> everybody
> cannot act on the maxim and THAT is precisely the point. 
> 
> The manuscript ends here in virtue of wafting leftover turkey aromas
> descending
> into the downstairs computer room. (Yes, we also have one upstairs because
> we
> have a 22 yr. old living with us in the house. Actually we have two upstairs
> but that is a long story ...)
> 
> Walter O
> Swivelling Chair
> Dad's Downstairs Computer Room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting wokshevs@xxxxxx:
> 
> > And one from me via Onora on why being a Scrooge is not universalizable:
> > 
> > "Those who make indifference or neglect [of others] an inclusive principle
> > are
> > committed not to help or to care for any others within the domain of
> ethical
> > consideration to which they are committed. They could think of their
> > principles
> > of indifference and neglect as universalizable only if indifference and
> > neglect
> > could be inclusive principles for all. Yet no vulnerable agent can
> > coherently
> > accept that indifference and neglect should be universalized, for if they
> > were
> > nobody could rely on others' help; joint projects would tend to fail;
> > vulnerable characters would be undermined; capacities and capabilities
> that
> > need assistance and nurturing would not emerge; personal relationships
> would
> > wither; education and cultural life would decline. It follows that those
> > with
> > plans and projects, even of the most minimal sort, cannot regard
> > indifference
> > and neglect as universalizable."
> > 
> > Onora O'Neill, *Towards justice and virtue: a constructive account of
> > practical
> > reasoning*, p.194
> > 
> > Just a niggling remark. Onora incorrectly writes "should be universalized"
> > in
> > her third sentence. She of course wants: "could be universalized." Her
> final
> > sentence has "cannot regard" as it should be. From the "cannot" of the
> > conclusion, which establishes the non-universalizability of maxims of
> > neglect
> > and indifference, we may validly conclude that human agents indeed should
> > not
> > (better: "ought not") regard such maxims as morally permissible.
> > 
> > May comfort and joy accompany all your T and sub-lunary acts of turkey,
> > Glenlivet and nurturing your own and others' talents. 
> > 
> > 
> > (But just remember: "No good deed goes unpunished.")
> > 
> > Thus endeth the lesson.
> > 
> > Cheers, Walter
> > 
> > Quoting Judith Evans <judith.evans001@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 
> > > Thank you, Mike.  And a Happy Boxing Day to all
> > > 
> > > Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:48 PM
> > > Subject: [lit-ideas] A gift to the List on this Christmas Day
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > THE POET VISITS THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS
> > >                                   
> > >                             -- by Mary Oliver
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: